Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation to expand the Federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers and administrators.

Nationwide, only 22 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program. In California, that number is even smaller: about 16 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.

A survey completed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in June 2000 called the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, FACES, found a strong relationship between the education of the Head Start teacher and classroom quality. ``Teachers with higher education levels were found to be more sensitive and responsive to their children, to have more high quality language activities, and more creative activities in their classrooms.''

Teachers with higher levels of education also had classes with more high quality language activities such as reading books to the children and provided more opportunities for children to develop skills in expressing thoughts.

Equally important, teachers with higher levels of education were found to be more responsive and sensitive to the children in their classes.

Head Start is one of the most important Federal programs because it has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.

We know that poor children disproportionately start school behind their peers, they are less likely to count to 10 or to recite the alphabet.

Providing low-income children with access to programs that encourage cognitive learning and prepare them to enter school ready to learn is important.

Head Start is one example of a Federal program that has the potential to reach every low-income child; to help every eligible child learn to count to ten and begin to recite the alphabet.

Many of our Nation's youngsters, however, enter elementary school without the basic skills necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers throughout their academic career.

As taxpayers, we will spend millions on efforts to help these children catch up. Many of these children will never catch up.

Several studies confirm the importance of providing low-income children with the opportunity early on to gain basic cognitive skills: a study conducted on a preschool program in Chicago showed that for every dollar invested, $8 was saved by society in projected costs. Additionally, 26 percent more children were likely to finish high school and 40 percent were less likely to repeat a grade.

The National Head Start Association found that for every dollar invested in Head Start, at least $2.50 is saved because these children need less remedial education and are less likely to be on welfare programs or involved with the juvenile justice system that non- Head Start peers.

The Rand Corporation found that for every dollar invested in early childhood learning programs, taxpayers save between $4 and $7 later by reducing the need for alcohol and drug treatment programs, special education programs, mental health services, and the likelihood of incarceration.

We can save millions by providing low-income children with access to quality preschool where they will gain the necessary skills to succeed in school and life.

In order to give every child a head start in life, we must continue to recruit qualified teachers to the Head Start field who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognition learning.

Obtaining and maintaining teachers with such qualifications is the only way to jump-start cognition learning and to ensure that our youngsters start elementary school ready to learn.

In 2000, the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel presided over fifteen national hearings and open forums. The panel found: ``There was a tremendous amount of testimony about the fact that, despite increases resulting from Federal quality set-aside funding, relatively low salaries and poor or non-existent benefits make it difficult to attract and retain qualified staff over the long term.

Witnesses stated that many staff positions remain vacant and turnover is likely to worsen if compensation does not improve significantly . . . comments included passionate exhortations for greater investment in staff, observing that, in Head Start . . . the quality of the program is tied directly to the quality of the staff.''

Many Head Start programs in California are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better, nationally, the average Head Start teacher made $20,700 in 2000 compared to $40,575 for an elementary and secondary school teacher.

Head Start teachers are making half of that elementary and secondary teachers are paid on average.

Low pay, combined with mounting student loan debt, is a real deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers.

And every teacher Head Start loses impacts access to services for our Nation's youngsters.

Today, there are no educational requirements for a Head Start teacher other than a child development associate CDA, credential, requiring 24 early child education credits and 16 general education credits.

By 2003, 50 percent of Head Start teachers will be required to have at minimum an associate or 2-year degree.

Following the recommendation of the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel, I believe we must elevate the compensation to attract and retain qualified individuals to commit to long-term careers in Head Start.

The loan forgiveness incentives in this bill are meant to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in the Head Start field. In exchange for 5 years of service, a Head Start teacher administrator could receive up to $5,000 of the Federal Stafford Loan forgiven.

I believe we must continue to improve the Head Start program such that children leave the program able to count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and can begin to recite the alphabet, to name a few indicators of cognitive learning.

This is just the first step. To further ensure cognitive learning, we must also continue to raise the standards and pay for Head Start teachers.

Ensuring that our nation's youngster have access to highly educated and qualified teachers should be a priority of this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation at the start of this new Congress to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions.

This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also re-introducing today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution standards.

Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, California. The Imperial Valley produces much of our Nation's wintertime vegetables. The Valley is the region in Southern California that will be impacted most by pollution from these power plants in Mexico. And since Imperial County has some of the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission standards.

One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. InterGen officials have repeatedly stated that their Mexicali plant will meet ``domestic standards or World Bank standards.'' The problem is these are not U.S. standards and are far below California standards.

I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air quality standards as plants in California.

The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California region deserve nothing less.

I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused to install pollution control devices on all four operating units.

This legislation has the support of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, the Imperial District, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy.

This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ the best technology available to control pollution and protect the public health for residents of Southern California and other border regions in a similar situation.

The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from the natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards.

This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online prior to January 1, 2003. It will apply to plants built after the new year and projects that come online in the future.

This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.

And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired small power sources.

The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission standards.

I support the development of new energy projects for California because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to devote less attention to clear air and public health.

It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border issues, but I believe it is a good first step.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison in re-introducing the National AMBER Alert Network Act. This legislation builds on the proven successes of the AMBER Alert program.

AMBER Alerts are official bulletins transmitted over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking down child abductors fleeing a crime scene.

AMBER Alerts are such powerful tools because they can be issued within minutes of an abduction and reach a wide public audience.

Statistics show that children in the most dangerous abduction cases have precious little time until their safety is compromised.

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children who were abducted, and later found murdered, are killed in the first hours after being taken.

Simply put, we need more AMBER Alerts because they may be the best tool law enforcement has to save kidnapped children facing imminent danger.

Last Fall, Senator Hutchison and I first introduced the ``National AMBER Alert Network Act.'' The bill attracted tremendous support in the Senate. Just seven days after it was introduced, the bill passed the Senate.

While the legislation did not pass the House, President Bush issued an executive order putting some of the pieces of the National AMBER Alert Network Act into effect.

Specifically, on October 3, 2002, President Bush announced that the Administration would create a national AMBER Alert coordinator in the Department of Justice, would draft national standards for AMBER Alerts; and allocate $10 million in funding for the creation of new AMBER Alert programs.

While President Bush's actions were an important first step, we now need to ensure the long-term viability of the national AMBER Alert program by enacting authorizing legislation.

The bill we introduce today has three key components.

First, the legislation would authorize $20 million to the Department of Transportation and $5 million to the Department of Justice in FY 2004 to provide grants for the development of AMBER Alert systems, electronic message boards, and training and education programs in states that do not have AMBER Alerts.

To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in 33 States and a total of 83 local, regional and State jurisdictions. This bill would help the expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions.

Second, the bill would build upon the President's Executive Order by authorizing a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department of

Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts.

Third, the bill provides a framework for the Department of Justice to establish minimum standards for the regional coordination of AMBER alerts.

The Department of Justice, working with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other private organizations with expertise in this area, would build upon the best standards currently in place.

Today, an AMBER Alert is typically issued only when: a law enforcement agency confirms that a predatory child abduction has occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information available that, if disseminated to the public, could assist in the safe recovery of the child.

The effectiveness of AMBER Alerts depends on the continued judicious use of the system so that the public does not grow to ignore the warnings.

Furthermore, it is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere with the operation of the 83 AMBER plans that are working today.

Participation in regional AMBER plans is voluntary, and any plan that wishes to go it alone may still do so.

I urge members to support this bill because AMBER Alerts have a proven track record.

Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe return of 42 children to their families, including one case in which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert himself.

I would like to briefly describe two of these cases: the rescues of 10 year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside and four-year old Jessica Cortez from Los Angeles.

Last fall, Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon attended a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government information on the AMBER Alert program.

In moving testimony, Sharon described how Nichole was abducted from their Riverside home on August 20, 2002 and how an AMBER Alert brought her daughter back to her within hours of the abduction.

In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in Nevada as well.

After learning about the Alert, a tribal police officer in Nevada spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours of the abduction.

He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe.

The AMBER Alert was the only reason that Nichole was able to return home to her mother, safe.

I can't think of any testimony in support of a bill more powerful than the sight of a mother sitting next to her daughter who she thought might be gone forever.

The second case I want to mention is that of Jessica Cortez. Jessica disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002.

But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care, receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from AMBER Alert and notified law enforcement.

Without the publicity generated by the Alert, Jessica could have been lost to her parents forever.

Through this legislation, we will extend to every corner of the Nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children.

This program will increase the odds that an abducted child will return to his or her family safety.

But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a child in the first place.

As Mark Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last Fall, this legislation will ``save kids lives.''

Once again, let me thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her tremendous leadership on this issue.

It is my hope that this bill will continue to see the strong, bipartisan support that led to its swift passage in the Senate last year. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, with Senator Chafee, to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level of 38.6 percent, until such time as the Federal budget returns to surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy, bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the Nation.

Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006. This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012, every penny of which would go toward reducing the Federal deficit.

Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just 908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide, just 0.7 percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and provide an immediate stimulus to our economy.

In June 2001, I voted for the President's tax plan. It was truly a different time: 9/11 had not taken place; war had not appeared on the horizon; revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced; and a recession was not evident.

Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both parties, supported a ``trigger'' on the 2001 tax reduction. This would have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49 votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today.

Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for the top rate to proceed, until we return to budget surpluses.

And that brings us to the Bush Administration's $674 billion tax cut and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It digs the Nation deeper into debt. It is not a stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the government's ability to pay for needed programs, like education, transportation, and law enforcement.

First, the President's plan would be a major contributor to massive budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the social security trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the social security trust fund, the deficit would still be $312 billion. This does not include the costs of a possible war with Iraq, an extension of Federal unemployment benefits, and the FY 2003 and FY 2004 appropriations bills.

Furthermore, as the Federal debt increases, the government will spend billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt, instead of priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education, transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even before this new package, and this package would add more than $100 billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds, which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term.

Second, the President's tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Taxpayers with income over 1 million would receive an average of more than $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle- income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent, while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent of taxpayers making under $54,000.

Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the Administration's plan, an elimination of

taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April 2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the wealthiest people--with more than half the benefits, $225 billion, going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading.

So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy, instead of a massive tax cut which will do neither.

Mr. President, I request that the attached table be included for the Record with my statement of support for the Feinstein-Chafee Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation at the start of this new Congress to protect those living along the California-Mexican border from harmful power plant emissions.

This bill, which Congressman Duncan Hunter is also re-introducing today in the House of Representatives, will prevent power plants built in Mexico from using natural gas from the United States, unless firms operating these plants agree to comply with California's air pollution standards.

Currently there are two new power plants planned for Mexicali, Mexico, a city right across the border from Imperial County, California. The Imperial Valley produces much of our Nation's wintertime vegetables. The Valley is the region in Southern California that will be impacted most by pollution from these power plants in Mexico. And since Imperial County has some of the worst air quality in the United States and one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the State, I believe these new plants must meet California emission standards.

One of the Mexicali plants, which is being built by Sempra Energy, will have pollution mitigation technology to minimize the impact of air pollution on the residents of the Imperial Valley. However, the other plant, to be built by InterGen, will not. InterGen officials have repeatedly stated that their Mexicali plant will meet ``domestic standards or World Bank standards.'' The problem is these are not U.S. standards and are far below California standards.

I am introducing this legislation today to make sure any plant that comes online along the California-Mexican border meets the same air quality standards as plants in California.

The residents of Imperial County and the entire Southern California region deserve nothing less.

I have heard from many constituents in Southern California concerned about the InterGen plant and local officials in Imperial County are adamantly opposed to the InterGen plant because the company has refused to install pollution control devices on all four operating units.

This legislation has the support of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, the Imperial District, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy.

This legislation will ensure energy plants along the border employ the best technology available to control pollution and protect the public health for residents of Southern California and other border regions in a similar situation.

The bill will prohibit energy companies from exporting natural gas from the United States for use in Mexico unless the natural gas fired generators south of the border meet the air standards prevalent in the United States. This will effectively cut power plants off from the natural gas supply if they do not meet higher emissions standards.

This legislation will not constrain power plants that were put online prior to January 1, 2003. It will apply to plants built after the new year and projects that come online in the future.

This bill will only apply to power plants within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.

And the legislation will only apply to power plants that generate more than 50 megawatts of power. We do not want to block any moves to replace dirty diesel back-up generators with cleaner natural-gas fired small power sources.

The bill calls for collaboration between the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine if a power plant is in compliance with relevant emission standards.

I support the development of new energy projects for California because I believe we need to bring more power online. However, I do not believe the fact that we need more power in California should allow companies to take advantage of this need and use it as an excuse to devote less attention to clear air and public health.

It is not unreasonable to ensure that companies making money in California energy market meet strict environmental standards. This legislation is meant to strike a balance between promoting new sources of energy south of the border and protecting the environment throughout the border region. It is not a final resolution of these cross-border issues, but I believe it is a good first step.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison in re-introducing the National AMBER Alert Network Act. This legislation builds on the proven successes of the AMBER Alert program.

AMBER Alerts are official bulletins transmitted over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking down child abductors fleeing a crime scene.

AMBER Alerts are such powerful tools because they can be issued within minutes of an abduction and reach a wide public audience.

Statistics show that children in the most dangerous abduction cases have precious little time until their safety is compromised.

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children who were abducted, and later found murdered, are killed in the first hours after being taken.

Simply put, we need more AMBER Alerts because they may be the best tool law enforcement has to save kidnapped children facing imminent danger.

Last Fall, Senator Hutchison and I first introduced the ``National AMBER Alert Network Act.'' The bill attracted tremendous support in the Senate. Just seven days after it was introduced, the bill passed the Senate.

While the legislation did not pass the House, President Bush issued an executive order putting some of the pieces of the National AMBER Alert Network Act into effect.

Specifically, on October 3, 2002, President Bush announced that the Administration would create a national AMBER Alert coordinator in the Department of Justice, would draft national standards for AMBER Alerts; and allocate $10 million in funding for the creation of new AMBER Alert programs.

While President Bush's actions were an important first step, we now need to ensure the long-term viability of the national AMBER Alert program by enacting authorizing legislation.

The bill we introduce today has three key components.

First, the legislation would authorize $20 million to the Department of Transportation and $5 million to the Department of Justice in FY 2004 to provide grants for the development of AMBER Alert systems, electronic message boards, and training and education programs in states that do not have AMBER Alerts.

To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in 33 States and a total of 83 local, regional and State jurisdictions. This bill would help the expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions.

Second, the bill would build upon the President's Executive Order by authorizing a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department of

Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts.

Third, the bill provides a framework for the Department of Justice to establish minimum standards for the regional coordination of AMBER alerts.

The Department of Justice, working with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other private organizations with expertise in this area, would build upon the best standards currently in place.

Today, an AMBER Alert is typically issued only when: a law enforcement agency confirms that a predatory child abduction has occurred, the child is in imminent danger, and there is information available that, if disseminated to the public, could assist in the safe recovery of the child.

The effectiveness of AMBER Alerts depends on the continued judicious use of the system so that the public does not grow to ignore the warnings.

Furthermore, it is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere with the operation of the 83 AMBER plans that are working today.

Participation in regional AMBER plans is voluntary, and any plan that wishes to go it alone may still do so.

I urge members to support this bill because AMBER Alerts have a proven track record.

Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe return of 42 children to their families, including one case in which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert himself.

I would like to briefly describe two of these cases: the rescues of 10 year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside and four-year old Jessica Cortez from Los Angeles.

Last fall, Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon attended a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government information on the AMBER Alert program.

In moving testimony, Sharon described how Nichole was abducted from their Riverside home on August 20, 2002 and how an AMBER Alert brought her daughter back to her within hours of the abduction.

In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in Nevada as well.

After learning about the Alert, a tribal police officer in Nevada spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours of the abduction.

He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe.

The AMBER Alert was the only reason that Nichole was able to return home to her mother, safe.

I can't think of any testimony in support of a bill more powerful than the sight of a mother sitting next to her daughter who she thought might be gone forever.

The second case I want to mention is that of Jessica Cortez. Jessica disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002.

But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care, receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from AMBER Alert and notified law enforcement.

Without the publicity generated by the Alert, Jessica could have been lost to her parents forever.

Through this legislation, we will extend to every corner of the Nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children.

This program will increase the odds that an abducted child will return to his or her family safety.

But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a child in the first place.

As Mark Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last Fall, this legislation will ``save kids lives.''

Once again, let me thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her tremendous leadership on this issue.

It is my hope that this bill will continue to see the strong, bipartisan support that led to its swift passage in the Senate last year. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, with Senator Chafee, to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level of 38.6 percent, until such time as the Federal budget returns to surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy, bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the Nation.

Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006. This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012, every penny of which would go toward reducing the Federal deficit.

Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just 908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide, just 0.7 percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and provide an immediate stimulus to our economy.

In June 2001, I voted for the President's tax plan. It was truly a different time: 9/11 had not taken place; war had not appeared on the horizon; revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced; and a recession was not evident.

Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both parties, supported a ``trigger'' on the 2001 tax reduction. This would have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49 votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today.

Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for the top rate to proceed, until we return to budget surpluses.

And that brings us to the Bush Administration's $674 billion tax cut and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It digs the Nation deeper into debt. It is not a stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the government's ability to pay for needed programs, like education, transportation, and law enforcement.

First, the President's plan would be a major contributor to massive budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the social security trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the social security trust fund, the deficit would still be $312 billion. This does not include the costs of a possible war with Iraq, an extension of Federal unemployment benefits, and the FY 2003 and FY 2004 appropriations bills.

Furthermore, as the Federal debt increases, the government will spend billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt, instead of priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education, transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even before this new package, and this package would add more than $100 billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds, which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term.

Second, the President's tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Taxpayers with income over 1 million would receive an average of more than $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle- income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent, while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent of taxpayers making under $54,000.

Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the Administration's plan, an elimination of

taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April 2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the wealthiest people--with more than half the benefits, $225 billion, going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading.

So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy, instead of a massive tax cut which will do neither.

Mr. President, I request that the attached table be included for the Record with my statement of support for the Feinstein-Chafee Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I join my good friend, Senator Kyl, in introducing S.J. Res, 1, the Victims' Rights Amendment.

Two years ago, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it read too much like a statute.

Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with constitutional experts, such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department of Justice and the White House, and we came up with a new and improved draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same rights as the old amendment.

Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our Constitution.

We had a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee did not act on the amendment. There are many reasons why we need a constitutional amendment.

First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights, fifteen of them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is not a single word in the Constitution about crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and State constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling argument.

Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' rights laws. Eighteen States lack state constitutional victim's rights amendment, and the 32 existing State victims' rights amendments differ from each other. Also, virtually every State has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims' rights.

Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for victims, not public prosecutors, to prosecute criminal cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims.

Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the Constitution was drafted.

Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere State law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of Federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even

in States with strong legal protections for victims' rights, many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the rights they are due.

Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because Federal statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' rights statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing, even though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of allowing the victims to do just that.

Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of Rights provides in part that:

A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless that court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial.

That statute further states that Federal Government officers and employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are accorded the[se] rights.''

The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the[se] rights.''

In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case ruled, without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys, that no victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing:

The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; other decided to leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing.

Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the ``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about the defendants' constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of evidence.

The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no ``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the victims. All to no avail.

The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 when then introduced in Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed into law, explaining that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.''

The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial.

The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result.

A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still testify at sentencing.

There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed the amendment. As the President put it last year, ``The Feinstein-Kyl amendment was written with care, and strikes a proper balance. Our legal system properly protects the rights of the accused in the Constitution, but it does not provide similar protection for the rights of victims, and that must change. The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And the Feinstein-Kyl crime victims' rights amendment is the right way to do it.''

I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victim's right. Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 28 Senators. I have spoken to many of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In addition I would vote the following:

Both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms call for a victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 States have called for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft support an amendment. Forty State attorneys general support an amendment.

Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance, support the amendment. Many law enforcement groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Nation Troops' Coalition, the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the California District Attorneys Association support an amendment. Constitutional scholars, such as Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe, support an amendment.

The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty- two States have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent.

I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring the victims' rights amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated April 15, 2002 from Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe be printed in the Record.